Gaystapo out on the prowl again

[Teallaura]

Is it so hard to believe that parental rejection has negative mental health effects?

The stats don't add up - that would mean that the majority of parents of 'gay' kids (misnomer) reject them to an abusive degree and in all probability, do so very early in life, well before the kid even knows what sex is, let alone demonstrates any preference. Your 'the family is responsible for all the later negative outcomes but not the dysfunction itself' is not supported because the exact same poor outcomes occur where kids are introduced to drugs even in good families.

There is a more reasonable explanation for the stats. The general pop reports a rate of parental abuse around 2%; homosexuals report over 35%. Makes little sense that parents who would not have abused a 'normal' child become abusive to a 'gay' child early enough to do profound damage; far more likely is that the parents were already prone to be abusive and the abuse triggers the sexual dysfunction.

So no, not hard to believe at all - I just don't buy that the sexual dysfunction is causative instead of caused.

[fm93]

actually yea I would conclude that left-handed people face more perils from living in a society designed for right-handed people. I am left-handed and I can attest that I am constantly having to make mental corrections to many things in the world. And as only 10 percent of the population is left handed, it is by definition abnormal. But as I said, being born a certain way doesn't mean something is right or wrong. Being left-handed is neither, being amoral in nature. Being born with some genetic defect that causes you to become a serial killer would be bad though. It would lead to behavior that society considers criminal and morally wrong. Would you think that someone should be able to claim that since they were born to kill, that is was normal and they should be able to do so with impunity?

And being born abnormal with some genetic aberration could actually be good. For example if you were born with an especially high IQ. Again, by definition, abnormal, but it provides a person with benefits that lets them function in society better than someone born at the opposite end of the spectrum (low IQ).

Genetics says nothing about whether a behavior is normal or morally good or bad. It is the behavior or trait itself that does. And genes don't actually just work like toggle switches that turn on and off behaviors. They control chemical and biological functions in cells, their development, and function. These in turn will affect other systems, and eventually can influence behavior. But influence is not the same thing as forcing. A person born with an addictive tendency can easily turn into a drug addict or alcoholic. But they don't have to. They can choose to avoid triggers and situations that would lead to such addictions. And if they are addicted, they can overcome the addictions. But we don't just say "Oh well, you were born to be an alcoholic, needle-using heroin addict, and you can't change so embrace it as normal"

We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here. I agree with everything you said. I never claimed that a genetic basis alone means that something should be considered good. I'm simply saying that a homosexual orientation, just like left-handedness, is one of those naturally-occurring variations that isn't intrinsically bad--both are normal and healthy. And as is the case with lefties, the problems experienced by people who happen to be homosexual are caused by obstacles that society/culture as a whole has constructed, not by the orientation itself.

[fm93]

What oppressive? Maybe you have to call those countries with right hand drive oppressive too. Or maybe those left hand drive countries.

My choice of words could have been better, but the general point remains the same--it's not homosexuality/left-handedness itself that causes problems, but a society that presents challenging obstacles to people with those traits.

Also, while I'm in this thread, I might as well offer my thoughts on the OP's topic. While I disagree with Eich's views, I don't condone what OkCupid did to him in response. He promised that he could separate his personal views from his business decisions and actions, and there's been no reason to doubt his word. There's no evidence that he discriminated against employees or released hate-speech or anything of the sort. The people who are trying to shut him up are absolutely doing their own side a disservice by acting unfairly.

[Sparko]

We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here. I agree with everything you said. I never claimed that a genetic basis alone means that something should be considered good. I'm simply saying that a homosexual orientation, just like left-handedness, is one of those naturally-occurring variations that isn't intrinsically bad--both are normal and healthy. And as is the case with lefties, the problems experienced by people who happen to be homosexual are caused by obstacles that society/culture as a whole has constructed, not by the orientation itself.

Then why are you arguing with me?

[fm93]

Then why are you arguing with me?

Because you're arguing that homosexuality is something bad and harmful.

[phank]

actually yea I would conclude that left-handed people face more perils from living in a society designed for right-handed people. I am left-handed and I can attest that I am constantly having to make mental corrections to many things in the world.

I wouldn't say it's perilous, just sometimes inconvenient. When oh when will they make a left-handed wristwatch?

And as only 10 percent of the population is left handed, it is by definition abnormal. But as I said, being born a certain way doesn't mean something is right or wrong. Being left-handed is neither, being amoral in nature.

I would regard sexual orientation is being mostly amoral as well, the exception being pedophilia, which does harm when acted on.

Being born with some genetic defect that causes you to become a serial killer would be bad though.

Genetics, at best, is an extremely indirect contributor to both sexual orientation and broad behavior. It's possible that neither one is genetic at all.

It would lead to behavior that society considers criminal and morally wrong. Would you think that someone should be able to claim that since they were born to kill, that is was normal and they should be able to do so with impunity?

I don't think any such claim would stand up to even cursory examination. Any competent geneticist would laugh.

And being born abnormal with some genetic aberration could actually be good. For example if you were born with an especially high IQ. Again, by definition, abnormal, but it provides a person with benefits that lets them function in society better than someone born at the opposite end of the spectrum (low IQ).

Then again, IQ as currently tested can and does vary widely with experience and practice. It's not entirely clear that such a thing as "big G" exists at all.

Genetics says nothing about whether a behavior is normal or morally good or bad.

Offhand, I have trouble coming up with any behavior that might be genetic.

It is the behavior or trait itself that does. And genes don't actually just work like toggle switches that turn on and off behaviors. They control chemical and biological functions in cells, their development, and function. These in turn will affect other systems, and eventually can influence behavior.

Not in a moral sense, I don't think. Regulatory genes ARE on/off switches during development, but these might eventually influence behavior only in variations of some physical abilities.

But influence is not the same thing as forcing. A person born with an addictive tendency can easily turn into a drug addict or alcoholic. But they don't have to. They can choose to avoid triggers and situations that would lead to such addictions. And if they are addicted, they can overcome the addictions. But we don't just say "Oh well, you were born to be an alcoholic, needle-using heroin addict, and you can't change so embrace it as normal"

Yes, this seems to be the case - both that there are apparently genetic propensities to become addicted (and have trouble escaping it), and that nonetheless such a person must choose both to become and to stay an addict. Although maybe Bruce Springsteen WAS born to run.

[Bill the Cat]

Because you're arguing that homosexuality is something bad and harmful.

And you are assuming it isn't. QED.

[Sparko]

I wouldn't say it's perilous, just sometimes inconvenient. When oh when will they make a left-handed wristwatch?

I would regard sexual orientation is being mostly amoral as well, the exception being pedophilia, which does harm when acted on.

Genetics, at best, is an extremely indirect contributor to both sexual orientation and broad behavior. It's possible that neither one is genetic at all.

I don't think any such claim would stand up to even cursory examination. Any competent geneticist would laugh.

Then again, IQ as currently tested can and does vary widely with experience and practice. It's not entirely clear that such a thing as "big G" exists at all.

Offhand, I have trouble coming up with any behavior that might be genetic.

Not in a moral sense, I don't think. Regulatory genes ARE on/off switches during development, but these might eventually influence behavior only in variations of some physical abilities.


Yes, this seems to be the case - both that there are apparently genetic propensities to become addicted (and have trouble escaping it), and that nonetheless such a person must choose both to become and to stay an addict. Although maybe Bruce Springsteen WAS born to run.

all I am saying at this point is that even IF homosexuality is due to genetics, people that use that as an argument that makes it OK are wrong. We don't judge a behavior's morality based on genetics but on the behavior itself as determined by society.

[Sparko]

Because you're arguing that homosexuality is something bad and harmful.

but whether it is moral or not is not based on genetics, but on my faith and the bible. I freely admit that. And as I quoted earlier and so have others, there is ample evidence that homosexuality is harmful. Whether it is harmful or not is actually a side issue. I just answered Sea who made the claim that it was healthy. It's not. The morality of homosexual behavior doesn't depend on that, because we have plenty of things that we consider a sin in Christianity that are sinful, even if they are not directly harmful. Such as lying, adultery, murder, stealing, etc.

[lilpixieofterror]

Considering the number of lawsuits that have been filed against them, and how much media attention they attract whenever they announce a picket, I wouldn't say "nobody takes them seriously." Most people don't take them seriously as a Christian group (i.e even non-Christians acknowledge that WBC is extremist and doesn't represent typical Christianity), but Westboro's words and actions are very much taken seriously. The fact that Westboro is just one group doesn't mean the pain they cause is negated or somehow less significant. Besides, although the WBC's on the extremist end, there are still plenty of groups and people who, although not as extreme, also say hurtful things towards gay people.

Paying attention to somebody and taking them seriously is two different things. The WBC is controversial and that sells papers, brings people to your web site, makes them watch your channel, buy your magazine, etc. If WBC was truly being taken seriously, people would be taking their ideas seriously instead of seeing them as a laughing stock. If an extremist group though, whose ideas are not taken seriously, is all you got. Well... I'm afraid you really got nothing.

The stereotype associating homosexuality with weakness still exists and seems to be unfortunately pervasive. Think about how many teenagers say things like "That guy is so gay!" or "You're acting like such a fag" to refer people who are perceived to be weak or soft or effeminate. And I think the stereotype of homosexuals being promiscuous and predatory still exists today, but in an implicit manner. Regardless, you conceded that there was a time when those stereotypes were common, which means there exists a generation (several generations, really) who've experienced the most insulting and demeaning treatment and stigmatization.

Then I would suggest you take it up with them and stop blaming people for things they did not do. I personally don't call anything gay and maintain a pretty good relationship with several people that I know are gay. If you want to blame somebody, blame those who actually do it.

I wasn't talking about relationships, but rather orientation. I'm fairly certain that heterosexuals don't have to worry about being disowned simply for saying "I'm straight." Also, I don't see how the point about heterosexual relationships is relevant. I think we'd both agree that it's a terrible thing for anyone to be disowned by family, correct? The fact that heterosexuals may have also experienced that doesn't lessen the pain from the homosexual's experience.

Nah, they just worry about being disowned for having a relationship that their parents do not approve of. Welcome to reality, in which everybody has problems, no matter what their sexual orientation is. Gays are not the first people nor the only people to face family problems. About everybody does.

Besides, there's something significant that you're forgetting--when a heterosexual relationship is condemned by society, the heterosexual has the option of ending that relationship and pursuing a relationship with a more acceptable partner. But a homosexual doesn't have this option, because the only people whom he/she would be interested in pursing a relationship with would be other homosexuals.

And you're avoiding the point because you don't want to see it. They are not the first nor the last people, in history, that have experienced problems with their relationships. Again, welcome to reality. Everybody has problems, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

Heterosexuals have been told that they can and should change their sexual orientation?

Your avoidance is noted. Have heterosexuals faced problems with their relationships? Yes or no?

Paul was given the thorn to prevent him from becoming conceited. It was supposed to be for his own good. On the other hand, many gay people have been repeatedly told that being gay is sinful and puts their soul at risk of eternal damnation. The two cases are significantly different.

And many people have been told that their sexual behaviors put their soul at risk of eternal damnation. They are not 'significantly different', at all.

It's a common human experience to think a fundamental part of how you happen to see things puts your soul in jeopardy? That's news to me. And again, even if heterosexuals undergo something similar, it doesn't lessen the emotional fear and pain and trauma that homosexuals (especially those raised in religious backgrounds) have faced.

Please, stop with the emotionalism and start to think for a change. The Bible condemns plenty of behaviors. It condemns sleeping with somebody who you are not married to. Do heterosexuals sleep with people they are not married to? Of course. Do people commit adultery? Of course. Do they steal? Of course. People break plenty of the commandments and laws listed in the Bible there square, so stop pretending that homosexuals are the only people, in history, that face emotional fear, pain and trauma and manage to overcome it. Many people have and the experience is not unique to homosexuals, but is a pretty common human experience.

[Darth Executor]

Depression, suicide, drug use, and risky sexual behavior are strongly tied to parental rejection of LGBT youth (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/346), and of course being rejected by family is not helpful for adults either.

No they're not. They're omnipresent, even in countries with no real stigma against it.

[CMD]

Andrew Sullivan is considered the father of the gay marriage movement. After Brendan Eich resigned this is what Sullivan wrote:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...-brendan-eich/

I've been reading some of the comments on his Facebook post. I was surprised to see that the party of tolerance, civility, equality, inclusiveness and diversity has so many hateful, intolerant, uncivil, "believe as I do or suffer my wrath!" folks in their midst's.

[phank]

all I am saying at this point is that even IF homosexuality is due to genetics, people that use that as an argument that makes it OK are wrong. We don't judge a behavior's morality based on genetics but on the behavior itself as determined by society.

Of course, how else could it be? You realize the implication here is that if over time society changes its mind, then morality tracks it?

[phank]

Please, stop with the emotionalism and start to think for a change. The Bible condemns plenty of behaviors. It condemns sleeping with somebody who you are not married to. Do heterosexuals sleep with people they are not married to? Of course. Do people commit adultery? Of course. Do they steal? Of course. People break plenty of the commandments and laws listed in the Bible there square, so stop pretending that homosexuals are the only people, in history, that face emotional fear, pain and trauma and manage to overcome it. Many people have and the experience is not unique to homosexuals, but is a pretty common human experience.

What this point, otherwise entirely correct, seems to carefully NOT notice, is that unusual sexual orientation is yet one more straw on the camel's back of the normal slings and arrows of being human. Heterosexuals of course sleep around - but the sheer weight of legal opposition to this is trivial next to homosexuals doing the same. Heterosexual marriages fail half the time and the other half have ups and downs, but nonetheless they are spared laws making their marriage even more difficult than it needs to be.

Otherwise, you sound like someone telling a cripple to suck it up, even athletes get bruises!

[phank]

but whether it is moral or not is not based on genetics, but on my faith and the bible. I freely admit that. And as I quoted earlier and so have others, there is ample evidence that homosexuality is harmful. Whether it is harmful or not is actually a side issue. I just answered Sea who made the claim that it was healthy. It's not. The morality of homosexual behavior doesn't depend on that, because we have plenty of things that we consider a sin in Christianity that are sinful, even if they are not directly harmful. Such as lying, adultery, murder, stealing, etc.

This is exactly what I was trying to tell Pixie, but you do it better than I can. She was saying that homosexuality presents no special opprobrium on anyone, and you quite correctly point out that your religious faith (the most common faith in the nation) regards their condition as inherently sinful, harmful, and unhealthy. Your bible tells you so. Heterosexuals, for all the problems they have navigating through life, at least don't have to buck THAT current as well.